Terminology Acceptable?

[RossEM]

"You still are not getting the point and i have said it numerous times,you can call anything you want anything you want, but that won't change what they actually are,and i have said that i tend not to call my rifles and shotguns weapons, but that does not alter the fact that they are weapons."

 

They're not weapons - the critical point here is what collective term you use - the word 'weapon' is a subgroup, not an collective term!

 

I don't call my guns weapons as that simply isn't what they are - I don't call my leatherman multitool a weapon either, even though it has a dirty great blade on it. It's a tool. I could call my guns oars but I don't use them as oars, similarly I could call them weapons but I don't use them as weapons.

[RossEM]

You've just stated that an implement designed and used to destroy farm animals (which is demonstrably not designed or used to defend or fight humans, as per the various dictionary definitions) is a weapon. That is plainly contrary to that common definition, and is therefore completely untrue. What about dummy launchers? Are they weapons or not?

 

"ironically you the person who has continued to argue the point that not all guns are weapons provided the conclusive proof from your own quote "authority" that they are." Which of my posts on this thread gives you that impression?! It is you who have proved yourself wrong by providing approximately zero conclusive statements in your argument.

 

"the argument is not about collective terms although in this case guns are weapons." No, collective terms are crucial to the argument as they define which terms are correct. I imagine a sort of flow chart would illustrate the point - I will see if I can come up with something tomorrow.

 

What "everyone can see" is that despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have no linguistic basis to back up your opinion that "guns are weapons" - and you refuse even to question yourself, fail to concede any successfully challenged point or engage in the detail of the debate - you repeatedly use 'final' language without having reached a factual conclusion.

[welsh1]

You've just stated that an implement designed and used to destroy farm animals (which is demonstrably not designed or used to defend or fight humans, as per the various dictionary definitions) is a weapon. That is plainly contrary to that common definition,Again by your own standard it is a weapon,If smashing a brain to bits is not bodily harm i don't know what is

 

Definition of weapon in English: noun

1A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:nuclear weapons

 

 

"ironically you the person who has continued to argue the point that not all guns are weapons provided the conclusive proof from your own quote "authority" that they are." Which of my posts on this thread gives you that impression?! It is you who have proved yourself wrong by providing approximately zero conclusive statements in your argument. And how do you figure that out,i have shown you in your authoritative dictionary that guns are weapons a link that you provided.

 

Definition of gun in English: noun

1A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelledby explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

 

"the argument is not about collective terms although in this case guns are weapons." No, collective terms are crucial to the argument as they define which terms are correct. I imagine a sort of flow chart would illustrate the point - I will see if I can come up with something tomorrow. One gun is a weapon,two guns are weapons ,three guns are weapons.one sporting gun is a weapon, two sporting guns are weapons, three sporting guns are weapons.Need i go on

 

What "everyone can see" is that despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have no linguistic basis to back up your opinion that "guns are weapons" - and you refuse even to question yourself, fail to concede any successfully challenged point or engage in the detail of the debate - you repeatedly use 'final' language without having reached a factual conclusion. again Ross i point toward the fact that you state that The Oxford English Dictionary is the Authority in this case,yet when it is pointed out to you that the OED who you rely on to give definitions of words in the english language state something that is contrary to what you want to believe you continue to try and argue that it is not true.The linguistic basis is there to be seen by the very people you describe as "Correct me if I'm wrong but they are the authority"

[CharlieT]

Ross

 

This is getting silly !

 

Are you trying to rewrite the OED or just being obtuse.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Ross

 

This is getting silly !

 

Are you trying to rewrite the OED or just being obtuse.

 

Now he will have to look up obtuse!

[The Mighty Prawn]

This has certainly turned into Obama's passport hasn't it! Regardless of all the evidence he is not an american... off to the bunker with my foil hat

[Livefast123]

Sporting rifle / shotgun is just a term used to bring a little gentlemany romance into mortally wounding quarry with a weapon.

[mudpatten]

Acceptable Terminology of a more general nature.

 

The instrument that one blows to attract duck is known as a DUCK CALL.

 

It is not correctly known as a duck CALLER. The caller is the person blowing the call.

 

If you`re blowing the caller, especially in a public place, you might be liable to arrest.

 

So, to conclude it`s a DUCK CALL - that`s a DUCK CALL and not a fe--ing duck caller.

 

Please get it right `cos otherwise it makes my blood boil.

Edited June 25, 2015 by mudpatten

[CharlieT]

Acceptable Terminology of a more general nature.

 

The instrument that one blows to attract duck is known as a DUCK CALL.

 

It is not correctly known as a duck CALLER. The caller is the person blowing the call.

 

If you`re blowing the caller, especially in a public place, you might be liable to arrest.

 

So, to conclude it`s a DUCK CALL - that`s a DUCK CALL and not a fe--ing duck caller.

 

Please get it right `cos otherwise it makes my blood boil.

 

 

Unless it's a CALL DUCK in which case it's a DUCK not a CALL to CALL the DUCK but a CALLER to CALL the DUCK in

[welsh1]

 

 

Unless it's a CALL DUCK in which case it's a DUCK not a CALL to CALL the DUCK but a CALLER to CALL the DUCK in

Think a spring in my head just went ping

[RossEM]

 

You've just stated that an implement designed and used to destroy farm animals (which is demonstrably not designed or used to defend or fight humans, as per the various dictionary definitions) is a weapon. That is plainly contrary to that common definition,Again by your own standard it is a weapon,If smashing a brain to bits is not bodily harm i don't know what is

 

(Apologies for upper case letters, meant to differentiate between our posts only)

HUMANE KILLERS ARE DESIGNED FOR USE ON ANIMALS BRAINS, NOT USE AGAINST HUMANS IN COMBAT. THE HSA DESCRIPTION OF HUMANE KILLERS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF GUN ONLY, NOT WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF WEAPON - THE PHRASE YOU HAVE QUOTED ABOVE - 'BODILY HARM' - IS FROM THE OED DEFINITION OF GUN, NOT THE DEFINITION OF WEAPON!!

 

ONCE AGAIN I'LL ASK IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHETHER DUMMY LAUNCHERS, WHICH FIT THE OED DEFINITION OF WEAPONS, ARE WEAPONS OR NOT? I DOUBT YOU CAN, WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY IGNORED THE POINT - IT PROVES YOU WRONG.

 

 

"ironically you the person who has continued to argue the point that not all guns are weapons provided the conclusive proof from your own quote "authority" that they are." Which of my posts on this thread gives you that impression?! It is you who have proved yourself wrong by providing approximately zero conclusive statements in your argument. And how do you figure that out,i have shown you in your authoritative dictionary that guns are weapons a link that you provided.

 

YOU'VE SHOWN ME NOTHING BUT TO HIGHLIGHT A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE OED DEFINITIONS OF 'GUN' AND 'WEAPON' - IE THE OED DEFINES GUNS AS WEAPONS , BUT DOES NOT DEFINE WEAPONS AS GUNS - I'VE POINTED THIS OUT TWICE!! IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO GRASP THAT THERE IS A PARADOX CAUSED BY THE DISCREPANCY - AS NOTED ON MORE THAN ONE POST, I COMPLETELY ACCEPT THAT THE OED DEFINITIONS DO NOT AGREE.

 

HOWEVER, IT IS TELLING THAT YOU ARE AGAIN IGNORING THE MOST RELEVANT FAULT IN YOUR ARGUMENT; THAT NO PUBLISHED DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'WEAPON' INCLUDES A REFERENCE TO SPORTING USE. THEREFORE I AM AT A LOSS AS TO HOW ANYONE TAKING THOSE DEFINITIONS AT FACE VALUE COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE INFERENCE IS THAT WEAPON IS A CORRECT COLLECTIVE TERM FOR BOTH MILITARY AND SPORTING GUNS. MY OPINION THEREFORE, AS INFERRED BY THE OED DEFINITION, IS THAT GUNS DESIGNED & USED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES ARE NEITHER WEAPONS BY DESIGN OR USE, THEREFORE 'WEAPON' IS THE WRONG TERM TO USE.

 

AS I SAID, THE OED ARE THE AUTHORITY, BUT NO AUTHORITY IS INFALLIBLE - I WILL REQUEST FULL CLARIFICATION FROM THEM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE LINK.

 

"the argument is not about collective terms although in this case guns are weapons." No, collective terms are crucial to the argument as they define which terms are correct. I imagine a sort of flow chart would illustrate the point - I will see if I can come up with something tomorrow. One gun is a weapon,two guns are weapons ,three guns are weapons.one sporting gun is a weapon, two sporting guns are weapons, three sporting guns are weapons.Need i go on

 

NO, YOU NEEDN'T GO ON. WE OBVIOUSLY DISAGREE IN PRINCIPLE REGARDING COLLECTIVE TERMS AND SUBGROUPS. I AM ADAMANT THAT WEAPONS ARE A SUBGROUP OF GUNS, YOU ARE ADAMANT OF THE OPPOSITE. I'VE EMAILED BILL HARRIMAN AT BASC/ANTIQUES ROADSHOW FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND WILL POST HIS REPLY. I ONLY SUGGESTED A FLOW CHART TO FURTHER ILLUSTRATE MY POINT - IMO THAT WOULD BE USEFUL, AS I COULD BE USED TO SUCCINCTLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY DISPLAY ALL TYPES OF GUNS/WEAPONS IN THEIR APPROPRIATE SUBGROUPS, USING THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY AND FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (IE DATE OF INVENTION IN RELATION TO INTENDED USE.) I ASSUME WE BOTH WANT A DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE, IS IT SUDDENLY OUT OF ORDER TO OFFER FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF MY POINT?!

 

What "everyone can see" is that despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have no linguistic basis to back up your opinion that "guns are weapons" - and you refuse even to question yourself, fail to concede any successfully challenged point or engage in the detail of the debate - you repeatedly use 'final' language without having reached a factual conclusion. again Ross i point toward the fact that you state that The Oxford English Dictionary is the Authority in this case,yet when it is pointed out to you that the OED who you rely on to give definitions of words in the english language state something that is contrary to what you want to believe you continue to try and argue that it is not true.The linguistic basis is there to be seen by the very people you describe as "Correct me if I'm wrong but they are the authority"

 

WHY POINT ME AGAIN TOWARDS THE FACT THAT I'VE STATED THAT THE OED IS THE AUTHORITY, WHEN A GENUINE DISCREPANCY IN THE DEFINITION OF TWO RELATED TERMS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED, WHICH I HAVE ACCEPTED (YOU HAVEN'T, SO FAR) AND OFFERED TO CONTACT THE OED TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION? WHY POINT OUT THAT I HAVE STATED THAT THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY WHEN I HAVE STATED IN ADDITION THAT NO AUTHORITY IS INFALLIBLE?

 

YOU HAVEN'T DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF POST #178. YOU'RE NOT EMBELLISHING YOUR OPINION WITH ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS, YOU'RE PROVIDING A DISTRACTION TO MASK A LACK OF CONTENT; IMPORTANTLY YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FLAWS IN YOUR ARGUMENT THAT I'VE POINTED OUT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS:

 

• IF SPORTING GUNS ARE WEAPONS, WHY DOES NO PUBLISHED DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'WEAPON' INCLUDE REFERENCE TO SPORTING USE?
• IF ALL IMPLEMENTS FIRING A PROJECTILE BY MEANS OF EXPLOSIVE FORCE (OED) ARE TO BE DESCRIBED AS WEAPONS, HOW DO DUMMY LAUNCHERS FIT THAT DESCRIPTION?
• PLEASE QUOTE A PRECEDENT FOR 'WEAPONS' BEING USED AS A COLLECTIVE TERM FOR ALL TYPES OF GUNS - I CANNOT FIND A SINGLE INSTANCE OTHER THAN YOURS!

 

WHEN I QUOTED THE OED DEFINITION OF WEAPON, I HAD NOT LOOKED AT THE DEFINITION OF GUN AND WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT LATTER DEFINITION WOULD CONTRADICT THE FORMER. I WILL BE ASKING THE OED TO ADDRESS THAT DISCREPANCY - PERHAPS YOU COULD BE GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THAT, RATHER THAN INFER THAT I AM TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THEIR DEFINITION ISN'T TRUE JUST BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. PERHAPS ALSO YOU COULD BE OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR A CONCLUSIVE REPLY FROM THE OED, RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO STATE THAT "GUNS ARE WEAPONS" - WHICH IS YOUR OPINION, NOT A FACT. UNTIL THE OED HAVE CLARIFIED THE DISCREPANCY, THE LINGUISTIC BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS AMBIGUOUS.

 

 

 

 

[welsh1]

Right ross here we go again

 

1,bodily harm does not differentiate between human or animal so a humane killer is a weapon and a gun is a weapon we have confirmed that.

 

2,A dummy launcher uses blanks it does not fire a projectile down a tube it uses gasses to launch a dummy placed over a tube,a dummy launcher is designed to launch a dummy into the air,it is not designed to cause harm to anyone.How do they possibly fit the definition of weapons?they are not designed to cause harm,and are not used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

Definition of weapon in English:

noun

1A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:

3,The OED have not made a mistake you just do not want to accept the truth.

 

4, i did address your last paragraph in #178 i answered it in #179, here it is again for you

again Ross i point toward the fact that you state that The Oxford English Dictionary is the Authority in this case,yet when it is pointed out to you that the OED who you rely on to give definitions of words in the english language state something that is contrary to what you want to believe you continue to try and argue that it is not true.The linguistic basis is there to be seen by the very people you describe as "Correct me if I'm wrong but they are the authority"

 

5,Sporting guns are not mentioned because they don't exist they are guns,sporting is just a name given to them to sell

​dummy launchers again,they do not fire a projectile down a tube,there are key words you should read.

 

Definition of gun in English:

noun

1A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelledby explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

6,Guns are weapons,you can see for yourself in the OED it's not rocket science.

7, The OED is correct,it is only you that thinks it is wrong, as for the fact that you didn't check the definitions of guns and weapons that is down to your bad prep no one else's.

And lastly Ross enough is enough, go and email the OED and please let us know the answer you get,until then it will remain the fact that,

A Gun is a Weapon

I apologise for different font sizes in my answers and different colours,it is because i am having to constantly cut and paste to respond.

Edited June 25, 2015 by welsh1

[RossEM]

Right ross here we go again

1,bodily harm does not differentiate between human or animal so a humane killer is a weapon and a gun is a weapon we have confirmed that.

(THE PHRASE 'BODILY HARM' IS FROM THE DEFINITION OF WEAPON, NOT GUN AS I STATED ABOVE - MY APOLOGIES WELSH - BEEN A LONG DAY)

BUT AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE HSA DESCRIPTION OF HUMANE KILLERS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF GUN, NOT WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF WEAPON.

SO IF THE HSA DEFINITION OF HUMANE KILLER FITS WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF GUN, BUT NOT WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF WEAPON - AND REMEMBER YOU'VE CONTINUALLY STATED THAT ALL GUNS ARE WEAPONS - IS A HUMANE KILLER A WEAPON?!

2,A dummy launcher uses blanks it does not fire a projectile down a tube it uses gasses to launch a dummy placed over a tube, a dummy launcher is designed to launch a dummy into the air,it is not designed to cause harm to anyone.How do they possibly fit the definition of weapons?they are not designed to cause harm,and are not used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPERATION OF DUMMY LAUNCHERS IS THAT THEY DO INDEED (TO QUOTE THE OED DEFINITION OF 'GUN') "INCORPORATE A METAL TUBE FROM WHICH MISSILES ARE PROPELLED BY EXPLOSIVE FORCE" - IF ALL GUNS ARE WEAPONS, IS A DUMMY LAUNCHER A WEAPON?

IN ADDITION, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE OED DEFINITION STIPULATES THAT THE PROJECTILE MOVES THROUGH THE BREECH, BORE AND MUZZLE? IT ONLY STATES '...A METAL TUBE FROM WHICH...'

SO, THE OED DEFINITION OF 'WEAPON' IS: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage, YET THE OPERATION OF A DUMMY LAUNCHER AGREES WITH THE OED DEFINITION OF 'GUN' - IF ALL GUNS ARE WEAPONS, IS A DUMMY LAUNCHER A WEAPON?

3,The OED have not made a mistake you just do not want to accept the truth.

THE CONTRADICTION IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE - THE OED DEFINITIONS OF 'GUN' AND 'WEAPON' INFER THAT A GUN IS A WEAPON , BUT A WEAPON IS NOT A GUN. THIS IS AS A RESULT OF THE GROSSLY WIDE DEFINITION OF WEAPON.

4, i did address your last paragraph in #178 i answered it in #179, here it is again for you

again Ross i point toward the fact that you state that The Oxford English Dictionary is the Authority in this case,yet when it is pointed out to you that the OED who you rely on to give definitions of words in the english language state something that is contrary to what you want to believe you continue to try and argue that it is not true.The linguistic basis is there to be seen by the very people you describe as "Correct me if I'm wrong but they are the authority"

THAT REPLY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REBUTTAL - THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER IT AS AN ADDRESS TO THE POINT I MADE - YOU ARE MERELY PASTING A QUOTE WHICH I HAD ALREADY COUNTERED.

YOU DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONTENT OF THAT PARAGRAPH, YOU DID NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO WHAT I'D SAID, YOU REFERRED ME TO AN EARLIER POST WHICH I HAD ALREADY COUNTERED.

5,Sporting guns are not mentioned because they don't exist they are guns,sporting is just a name given to them to sell

​dummy launchers again,they do not fire a projectile down a tube,there are key words you should read.

WHY ARE YOU REPLYING AS THOUGH I'D STATED THE GUNS THEMSELVES ARE NOT MENTIONED? THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID! I'VE CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT *WEAPONS ARE NOT DEFINED AS BEING USED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES*, THEREFORE HOW CAN GUNS DESIGNED FOR SPORTING USE BE DESCRIBED AS WEAPONS?

6,Guns are weapons,you can see for yourself in the OED it's not rocket science.

NO, THE OED DEFINITIONS OF 'GUN' AND 'WEAPON' DO NOT CORRELATE, SEE ABOVE REPLY TO YOUR POINT 3.

7, The OED is correct,it is only you that thinks it is wrong, as for the fact that you didn't check the definitions of guns and weapons that is down to your bad prep no one else's.

BAD PREP??? THE CORE OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT PRECEDENCE - YOUR OPINION, AND IT IS MERELY THAT, IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT 'WEAPON' IS THE CORRECT COLLECTIVE TERM FOR GUNS, YOU ARE WITHOUT A SHRED OF LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE AS FAR AS YOU'VE DISPLAYED THUS FAR - IF I'M WRONG THEN PLEASE PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION IN MY LAST POST:

• PLEASE QUOTE A PRECEDENT FOR 'WEAPONS' BEING USED AS A COLLECTIVE TERM FOR ALL TYPES OF GUNS - I CANNOT FIND A SINGLE INSTANCE OTHER THAN YOURS!
  

And lastly Ross enough is enough, go and email the OED and please let us know the answer you get,until then it will remain the fact that,

A Gun is a Weapon

IT IS SUPREMELY ARROGANT OF YOU TO DECLARE YOUR ARGUMENT FACTUAL WHEN YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY AVOIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO MY QUESTIONS WITH STATEMENTS OF A FACTUAL BASIS TO BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS. SO UNTIL YOU COME UP WITH SOME DIRECT ANSWERS TO MY REPLIES TO YOUR POST #188, PARTICULARLY POINTS 1,2 & 7 (PERTINENT TO YOUR ARGUMENT, NOT THE SEMANTICS OF THE DISCUSSION) THE ABOVE STATEMENT REMAINS AMBIGUOUS AND UNPROVEN - BIG LETTERS WON'T DISGUISE IT!

[welsh1]

I rarely ever say this to anyone ,but I will make an exception here,get a life Ross, either you cannot read correctly or you cannot put basic facts together,you continually go over and Over the same ground when it had been shown to you time and time again,you are wrong on every level you are wrong about your so called sporting guns, you are wrong about humane killers you are wrong about dummy launchers,in fact you are wrong in just about everything you have said or stated,learn to read what a statement says, learn the context it is put in, and learn what the words in those statements mean, because so far you seem totally inept at being able to do any of these things,

I make no apologies for the above ,you could try the patience of a saint, I just hope that no one ever States to you that black is not white because I honestly believe you would argue for the sake of it even if you knew it was wrong.

 

You have totally and utterly lost your argument here,it has been shown to you and proved to you ,by heck you even admit you didn't look up both the definition of gun and weapon before arguing about them, that is just PPP,and it shows in your posts.

 

Type anything you want Ross you obviously want the last word,I am finished it is pointless arguing any more.

 

A gun is a weapon it is a fact ,you can see it is a fact,yet you now believe the dictionary is wrong!

I'm out.

[The Mighty Prawn]

Go and shout at the wind Welsh1, it's a better listener

 

Just like the people who think the government orchestrated 9/11, or the lizards are taking over the world, or any quasi religion headed by Hollywood actors, there are some people unable to listen to reason or sense and it is a waste of everyone's time continuing with this thread

[Breastman]

FGS is this still rumbling on?! Look, some people think all firearms are weapons regardless of why they were designed or made, some people don't unless they're used to attack or defend a human. This isn't apparently going to be resolved. Isn't it about time this was locked?

 

By the way, does anyone know which is better, .22lr or .17HMR?

[wymberley]

 

some people don't unless they're used to attack or defend a human.

 

It really is that simple.

 

By the way, does anyone know which is better, .22lr or .17HMR?

 

Who cares? They both worked a treat on last night's outing.

[RossEM]

YOU'RE JUST IGNORING THE FAULTS IN YOUR ARGUMENT - WEAPON HAS NEVER BEEN A CORRECT TERM TO DESCRIBE ALL GUNS, JUST MILITARY GUNS. I'M GOING OVER OLD GROUND BECAUSE YOU WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT DISPROVE YOUR ARGUMENT - YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG.

RESORTING TO INSULTS IS AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT

Edited June 26, 2015 by RossEM

[Dunkield]

We (you) seem to be going over and over the same ground with no end in sight, so this is a good a time as any to knock this one the head.